BILL WHITTLE DOT COM HEADER ALPHA CHANNEL

No Sense of Scale

How many times in the past twenty years have we seen legislation, passed by Congress and signed by the President, being overturned by some judge at some level somewhere, throwing a monkey wrench into the gears of the Republic? Likewise, how far down the legal ladder does one have to look to find one prosecutor willing to take on the absurd charges leveled against a former President of the United States of America?

Listen here on Soundcloud:

5 22 votes
Article Rating
Latest Episode
Get in the Fight!
Subscribe
Notify of
38 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brother Bob
January 31, 2024 12:52 PM

I’m late to the party, but Mr. Reagan had a great tweet about Putin locking up a political rival where he said something to the effect of “It’s a sad day when Russian politics are becoming as corrupt as the US”

Karen Samuel
January 31, 2024 7:22 AM

I’m behind on my RA listening this week. I recently heard on a different podcast a theory that the Dems know their going to lose this election to Trump, and they also know our economy is in trouble. Trump will be president, but he’ll be blamed for all the bad stuff that is coming and the Dems can do a blue sweep in 2026 and 2028. Its a good theory. All this lawfare is theater – expensive theater – but the Dems all look, to their own people, like they’re doing to their best to fight the Orange Man. They… Read more »

Stephen Apple
January 30, 2024 10:33 AM

I read articles about congressmen, senators, etc. who flaunt the laws wherever they go, and claim immunity from local prosecution. Especially with respect to traffic laws, etc. I don’t recall what the statutes are that protect them, but I have seen it happen many times. Why is this not also true of other local government actions against federal elected officials? Otherwise, our federal official could all end up like Trump and spend their whole time in service fighting fake charges. (recall Russia hoax). And just one more thing- loser should pay. That would put a stop to a lot of… Read more »

Nathan Larson
Reply to  Stephen Apple
January 30, 2024 10:46 AM

I’m not sure they would care about the loser paying though. They make so much money from insider trading, what’s a few court bills?

Karl Schweitzer
January 29, 2024 8:59 PM

I think Steve’s solution is tar+feathers, or rope+lamp posts, some assembly required, though that might be an example of the system falling apart. One way of saying what Scott tried is we are “small r” republicans, not GOP Republicans. The overly political DAs will not only “look dirty in the process”, as Scott said but open the door for reprisals. The Reid rule is the Senate version. I am not sure the Fani rule will be as popular. Maybe Letitica will get the fame, once Donald wins his appeal. The saying I’ve heard is a prosecutor who hasn’t lost is… Read more »

ACTS (TM)
January 29, 2024 4:24 PM

The more they try to play these petty, juvenile legal games with Trump, the more it becomes obvious to even the swing voters how silly these legal games are. If the Left had picked one serious felony they thought they could make stick and pressed that hard they might have achieved at least some of their desired effect. All this scattershot nonsense is having the opposite effect of what the Left wants. The whole thing is becoming a farce that anyone can see. In fact, the Left couldn’t have shot themselves in the foot any better than if that was… Read more »

Ron Swansons Alter Ego
Reply to  ACTS (TM)
January 30, 2024 10:38 AM

the more it becomes obvious to even especially the swing voters how silly these legal games are Fixed it for you. Hillary Clinton, very arguably the most unpleasant, corrupt, sick, old, lying, back-biting, frail example of a harpy to ever hit the American political scene  See image Trump is getting billions of dollars worth of free political air time over this. Recall a calculation from 2016 race that the air time, not including Fox, for Trump if calculated as campaign ad value was over $10B. CNN and MSNBC couldn’t stop talking about him and having his surrogates on. Their ratings… Read more »

dontmincewords
ACTS (TM)
Reply to  Ron Swansons Alter Ego
January 30, 2024 11:10 AM

I gotta say, even though I’m not a Trump fanatic, the press has long passed the point where they’re hurting Donald Trump. If they had just left him to fade to obscurity as a former POTUS with legal problems I don’t think any amount of effort by the MAGA crowd could have come anywhere close to the media boost he’s getting from the people that hate him. Thanks for fixing that sentence for me 🙂 If you think what I said about Hillary was blunt, don’t even get me started on Moose Obama … Hillary is detestable, vile, venal, corrupt… Read more »

Donald Lehoux
January 29, 2024 4:28 AM

since the cop will no arrest the criminal politician but harass Trump, Kyle the solution is the 2nd Amendment.

ACTS (TM)
Reply to  Donald Lehoux
January 29, 2024 6:33 AM

Yeah, if you’re a white Conservative go around shooting people and see how fast you get arrested. Because you’re exactly the sort of “criminal” the Left loves to throw the full weight of the State against, then parade you across the media as an “example” of “crazy Right Wingers”. So that they have an excuse for even greater abominations. Kyle Rittenhouse was defending himself and he got wrung out hard for doing that. He had to do what he did to survive but he also placed himself in a position where that could happen. You’d best make damn sure that… Read more »

Nathan Larson
Reply to  ACTS (TM)
January 29, 2024 9:21 AM

Your rules of engagement appear to be from the TV show “Kung Fu”. https://www.quotes.net/mquote/51726

ACTS (TM)
Reply to  Nathan Larson
January 29, 2024 9:56 AM

… and after all, in your universe it’s impossible that any TV show might use actual rules of engagement to impart a sense of realism. Hell, Kung Fu came out in 1972 and I didn’t enlist until 1975 so for all I know, the Marines copied the tv series and not the other way around. It wouldn’t be the first time. Which still changes nothing and unless you’ve served in the Marine Corps you have no way to know either way. How very petty of you to make an issue of this. Thanks for letting me live rent free in… Read more »

Nathan Larson
Reply to  ACTS (TM)
January 29, 2024 10:51 AM

I was actually agreeing with what you said in your first comment, but when you pulled the “I’m a marine” card, I was curious if those rules of engagement were actually used by the marines. An ROI card sample I found went like this: If you see or hear anyone approaching you, adopt the ‘on guard’ position and challenge in English and <local language> ‘HALT!’ If the person challenged halts and you are satisfied that he has authority to be there, allow hm to proceed. If you are not satisfied that he has authority to be there, allow him to… Read more »

ACTS (TM)
Reply to  Nathan Larson
January 29, 2024 3:44 PM

I never heard of “ROI” as it pertains to guard posts and standing orders. I think you’re confused. ROI means “Return on Investment” not “Rules of Engagement”. It’s an amatuer mistake and now it’s enshrined on the internet forever because you can’t change or delete your post after I reply to it. (“Marine” is spelled with a capital “M” too, btw. Not that respect is something you appear to concern yourself with.) What you are quoting sounds more like something out of a training manual. It is instruction on HOW to guard not when the application of force is permitted.… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by ACTS (TM)
Nathan Larson
Reply to  ACTS (TM)
January 30, 2024 10:04 AM

You call me petty, then you make a big deal out of typos. Here’s two bad habits of yours, if we’re going down that road: straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. In other words, creating caricatures of the other person’s words, and resorting to personal attacks against a person instead of addressing the issues. For instance, I never said that I had current information for standing rules of engagement. (That’s a straw man) I said I found a sample of an ROE card that was previously issued to a guard, and that it sounded a lot more dry, boring,… Read more »

Stephen Apple
Reply to  Nathan Larson
January 30, 2024 10:44 AM

Nathan- you need to learn not to engage Mr. Acts. Even when you try to agree with him, he will violently let you know how much more intelligent he is than you. And he will ALWAYS continue until he gets the last word because you simply give up. I have learned that when I see his name at the top of a post, I simply bypass it. Even if it might be correct, it is usually a set up to draw somebody into an argument. Twain: Do not argue with idiots- they will drag you down to their level and… Read more »

Nathan Larson
Reply to  Stephen Apple
January 30, 2024 11:45 AM

Lol, I was just telling myself a version of that. You’re right, I get sucked in because my BS-ometer gets set off. I need to be better at picking my battles.

“…he will violently let you know how much more intelligent he is than you”. Excellent description, and thanks for the laugh!

David Pimentel
Reply to  Stephen Apple
January 30, 2024 12:03 PM

I have learned that when I see his name at the top of a post, I simply bypass it. Even if it might be correct, it is usually a set up to draw somebody into an argument.”

Bravo! This was a lesson I took too long to learn. Now, I read “ACTS” and think “movin’ on.” I just wish I could upvote your comment more than twice. :smirk:

ACTS (TM)
Reply to  Harry Ferguson
January 29, 2024 11:01 AM

Careful, Nathan Larson will accuse you of being a Kwai Chang Caine wannabe too. There are many variations on that theme. The earliest I can remember is my Dad telling me to never let the muzzle of a gun point at anything the destruction of which would be a disaster. “Never point unless you intend to shoot, never shoot unless you intend to kill” … That kind of thing. In this case we’re dealing with the appropriate level of force proportional to the threat encountered. My rules of engagement list is simply codification of the general principle that it’s not… Read more »

Nathan Larson
Reply to  ACTS (TM)
January 29, 2024 11:28 AM

“Never shoot unless you intend to kill”, but “If you fire your weapon you’re expected to shoot at something not immediately fatal, like the legs”? Those two statements seem to contradict each other. Also, why are you so offended that you must resort to calling me names, and imply that I would be the one who shoots the washer woman in the back?

ACTS (TM)
Reply to  Nathan Larson
January 29, 2024 4:00 PM

Those two statements would be contradictory if my Father was the one giving me my orders for standing guard at a Marine Corps post. Last time I checked dear old Dad wasn’t the Commandant of the Marine Corps. If my Dad tells me one thing and the Marines order me to do something else while I’m in the Marine Corps, which one of those things do you suppose I’m going to do, Einstein? Do you really think in your very peculiar way of looking at things that something my Dad said to me is going to supercede official military orders?… Read more »

Nathan Larson
Reply to  ACTS (TM)
January 29, 2024 7:13 PM

Ah yes, abrasive and obnoxious were the words I used I believe. I think I might have also said “keyboard commando”. Pretty sure that’s the closest I’ve ever come to name calling with you, and that is exactly how you were acting towards another member of the forum at the time, so it seemed appropriate to me. If you think I pick on you a lot, it’s probably because I’m usually responding to one of your rants, and you’re usually picking on someone during those rants. Civility goes both ways, and respect is generally something you have to earn. (As… Read more »

ACTS (TM)
Reply to  Nathan Larson
January 30, 2024 11:58 AM

Ok, I’ll tell you what. I’ll treat that comment as an attempt at civil discussion and respond in kind. I agree, I’d rather shoot to kill or not at all. I’d rather not shoot someone in the legs hoping that it disabled and didn’t kill them. I’d rather not shoot anyone who wasn’t trying to shoot me first period. However, the exigencies and expediencies of the military are not the same as those in civilian life. Yes, if you shoot someone in the leg(s) with a 5.56mm round it may just kill them anyway. Or it may not, the military… Read more »

Nathan Larson
Reply to  ACTS (TM)
January 30, 2024 1:04 PM

I’d probably be smarter to take the advise of Steven Apple and just ignore you, but credit where credit is due, this is the most polite I’ve ever seen you, so it seems like you’re making an effort. I’ll say fair enough about “you have to have been there” and give you the benefit of the doubt. We can agree to disagree on the details. This doesn’t mean I will stop questioning what you or other people say if it doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve had enough of being told “you’re not an expert, so you can’t talk about… Read more »

ACTS (TM)
Reply to  Nathan Larson
January 30, 2024 2:04 PM

You’re always welcome to question me. It’s the manner of the questioning that’s the issue. If you have to use condescending snark to “get your point across” then you have no complaint if someone fires back but perhaps not in kind. A hostile act is a hostile act — You don’t get to set any rules for how people respond to you and neither do I nor anyone else. If you look you’ll see I can be quite friendly and civil to those who show me the same respect. There are people in here that I never get salty with… Read more »

Nathan Larson
Reply to  Donald Lehoux
January 29, 2024 9:35 AM

So…. The solution is to shoot the cops and politicians? Or what exactly did you have in mind?

ACTS (TM)
Reply to  Nathan Larson
January 29, 2024 10:30 AM

I didn’t say “shoot the cops and politicians” or anything even close to that, I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Just the opposite, I was cautioning against shooting ANYONE. Do you not agree that going around shooting people is not the optimal solution to social problems? Or are you just looking for an excuse to kill people? If that’s the case, go ahead and see what happens to you. I was clear about what I said and your inability to comprehend the written word is not my problem. Nor is your puerile attitude at all impressive… Read more »

Nathan Larson
Reply to  ACTS (TM)
January 29, 2024 10:56 AM

It says “reply to Donald Lehoux”, does it not? I wasn’t talking to you.

ACTS (TM)
Reply to  Nathan Larson
January 29, 2024 4:01 PM

My bust. I apologize for that one. I’ll try to check who the reply is meant for before responding in the future.

Nathan Larson
Reply to  ACTS (TM)
January 29, 2024 7:18 PM

Acknowledged and accepted. (There, see? We CAN be civil occasionally)

Keith Jackson
January 28, 2024 4:30 PM

I was just talking about similar things with my wife. We were reading Hillsdale College’s IMPRIMUS circular, this month a Rand Paul talk on improprieties around the Covid-19 disaster. Your jaw hangs open in disbelief reading it. But I can’t be excited about it because no-one on the Left or the Big State pays the price for unlawful impropriety. Not Hilary, not Biden, not any left-leaning friend of big government excess. No media biases resulting in lies resulting in election malfeasance held accountable. Lies are fine. Lies are good. Lies get you ahead. Lies are honored with Nobel Prizes. Lies… Read more »

Nathan Larson
Reply to  Keith Jackson
January 29, 2024 9:25 AM

Getting caught might even be intentional. It gives them a chance to flaunt their power. “Look at me! I can do whatever I want, and get away with it!”

Ron Swansons Alter Ego
Reply to  Keith Jackson
January 30, 2024 10:41 AM

Read that last week when I got it. And my first thought was the same – shame that no one who needs to read this will.

Stephen Apple
Reply to  Keith Jackson
January 30, 2024 10:53 AM

Adams observed:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Thus they expected those elected to enforce it to not be of such moral turpitude as to ignore their pledged duty.
Has God left America to its own wickedness?

Mark Hunn
January 28, 2024 4:12 PM

I’ve been thinking a DA is just a ambulance chaser who got elected for some time now. I wonder if we will reach a point where everyone openly admits it’s just an overbearing game of Dungeons And Dragons. Our founders knew it, so they came up with a list of things you aren’t allowed to do to people just because you are playing a game. I have no faith that modern residents of the United States would do anything of the sort.

saunders jones jr
January 28, 2024 12:09 PM

amen